Morality and Atheism

You've reached the message board for Advent Chaos, a place for creators, designers, writers, artists and role players to meet, share their work, and discuss.

If you are not legally allowed to view mature content, or if you dislike such content, do not enter. We are no longer responsible if you disregard this warning.

If you have not been dissuaded, join here.

Morality and Atheism; For you nihilistic types.
Topic Started: Sep 26 2008, 08:57 PM (564 Views)
Chaos	Sep 26 2008, 08:57 PM Post #1
Master of the Chaotic Method Posts: 240 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Apr 1, 2008 Steam ID Katanoki	This is more for the atheist and other non-believing members of the board, but as always, anyone can participate. Without a higher diety(s) to guide or a code to follow, and with the belief that there are no repercussions after death, is there reason to follow a specific or personal morality? Is morality necessary? Are there any reasons, personal or logical, that you do/do not adhere to morality? Along with any other questions that you guys think of.



Pentanine	Sep 26 2008, 09:46 PM Post #2
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Morality carries more then a religious and afterlife-based need and want to it. This argument will be in response to a statement along the lines of "I think morality is unnecessary." Morality literally makes the world a "better place", from morality's perspective. Morals breed what morality considers to be good behavior, and restricts what is immoral or "bad" behavior. Being that we were raised in a society with morals, what we consider to be "good" and "bad" often coincide with what morality considers to be as well. So unless you are from somewhere else or widely widely disagree with our entire moral basis, you're probably more likely to be asking "Is there any reason for us to be good? Why shouldn't we all be bad?" If we redefine your statement as such, then the answer would be as simple as "It makes the world a worse place to live in for all of us." But it's not that simple, is it? You don't hate all of morality. No, I daresay you wouldn't like to be raped by the fat lonely guy in the back of the room who holds back due to a combination of the law and a sense of right and wrong. Or stabbed by the other bored guy in the back who's always wondered what it felt like to pass a knife through someone's visceral layers. So you do approve of some morals I would assume. Then, the more likely clarification of your moral issue is that you don't like some of the morals in the average definition of "morality". Some disagree that it's immoral to have more than one sexual partner, some disagree that it's immoral to change your sex entirely. Some disagree that it's immoral to stab a recurring thief in the eye after he steals some of your stuff due to "violence never being the answer." Let's face it, you're never going to like all of somebody's moral code, most likely. Either you think something should be added to it, or something should be removed from it. It's the exact same way with the law. Certain morals you don't believe should be followed at all, and oftentimes people choose not to follow them, that's okay. What is MY personal belief on the limit, however? I believe that if something affects you and ONLY you, then by all means, feel absolutely free to do it. People might care and whine at you, but it's fully none of their business based on the idea that this action does not interact with them. IF, however, it DOES interact with other people, then a compromise must be reached. You have to realize that they have their own personal comfort zone that they don't like to be crossed. There really is no particular reason for you to wave your genitals in the 90 year old christian woman's face, and shame on you for doing so. There is a point at which you should respect people's rights to live the way they want to. This is what morality essentially allows you to do. There are of course, complications in situations that come up over time, such as "Normally it would be immoral for me to hit this person since it interacts with them, but he just threw my stuff in the trash!" It happens, just like the law, again. In summation ------------ Obeying the rules doesn't make your life happier, it makes the lives of everyone else happy. This effect prevents the exponential increase in making the world worse that would accumulate from each individual acting bad in the world and cooperatively dragging it down. So yes, I agree a certain degree of morals are very important, regardless of how many Christians and other major world religions try to shove their own personalized ones down your throat. You don't quit school just because you hate one or two bad teachers, and you don't drop all of morality just because you think one or two are unnecessary. If you choose to drop one or two tidbits of it, however, then so be it! Everyone's moral code is different somehow, yours lacking one or two rules isn't going to kill everyone. Just keep it in moderation, kthx? Bai.



Pentanine	Sep 27 2008, 02:01 AM Post #3
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Therion Sep 27 2008, 12:06 AM First off, I want to state that morality is a man-made concept. It is an abstract, there is no force out there that punishes or rewards you based on how nice you are to everyone else. There is, however, consequence. Consequence is simple: It is the direct result of the actions you have taken as a person. In this sense, it is only a matter of balancing acceptable risk with acceptable loss with positive gain. What is the risk of the consequences of the action being negative? If they become negative, is the action taken worth the consequences? In my mind, the only thing I cannot do are the things I believe have an unacceptable risk of resulting unnacceptably negatively. Anything else is irrational. The problem with your point of view is that its self-centered and selfish. And I don't mean this in an insulting as much as a literal way. Your point of view has a clear disregard for the well-being of your fellow man. But first off I'll state that while morality is a man-made concept, just about everything that isn't demonstrated in some way by throwing a ball at the wall (Or for a more clear definition without sarcasm, anything involving the mind or the decision making process) is a man-made concept. And simply because it isn't ingrained into every atom of physical law doesn't make it something to disregard for the sake of mathematical measurement of consequence and reward. Furthermore, some losses cannot be directly observed, prepared for, or measured. This will be shown in example later. Secondly, the idea has a complete blind eye to the idea of a replication effect of ill will, and of "What goes around, comes around." Sure, you could choose to be a complete ass to the quiet kid who was minding his own business. What's the consequence? Nothing, he's not going to say anything. The benefit? You got to lay out somebody and view their reaction for personal amusement, I suppose. So what's the problem with this gameplan? The problem, old chap, is that you've served to do nothing but breed ill will into the world for your own personal gain. That same group of people now view the world as a slightly darker place every time this kind of event fixates itself upon them. Sure, you YOURSELF might not cause them to be homicidal murders or school shooters. But, let's say..... Let's say you had a whole group of people with this mentality concentrated into one area. This kind of thing or an event like it, over time, would cause certain individuals to have a very bad time. Why is that relevant? Another phrase comes to mind, and that is.... "Misery loves company." You made someone miserable that day. And every day that he felt miserable it got to him, until one day he or they got up and said, "You know what?! If this is the way the world is, this is how I'll be too." Now, all of a sudden, that quiet kid you picked on in the back is a lot more bold and a lot more asshole-ish. Someday he might come up to you or someone like you and slam your head into your desk just for the sheer fun of it. Why? Because what went around came around. If enough people darken the view of the world, the world BECOMES dark. THIS is why morality is here.



Pentanine	Sep 27 2008, 07:01 PM Post #4
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Therion Sep 27 2008, 12:46 PM So why am I being given a handful of shit to grow into? Why must I love my fellow man, when it is abundantly clear my fellow man does not love me? In light of the evidence given, I dare say my fellow man HATES me. So you know what? FUCK my fellow man. I have 80 years on this rock, 100 tops. I'm going to serve myself first, and everyone else second, because that seems to be about the only game plan that makes anyone happy, in the end. I'm not going to prance around shoving flowers up my ass to make everyone feel better. If they need someone else's praise heaped upon them to make them feel good about themselves, they're not worth being nice to. And THERE IT IS! Don't you see? Isn't it obvious to you? Look at your reasoning, your logic for doing what you do. I will show you with simple quotes. You ---- "I dare say my fellow man HATES me" "because that seems to be about the only game plan that makes anyone happy, in the end." Read your words, and then re-read what I have stated, and see if you perceive what I do. Me --- "That same group of people now view the world as a slightly darker place every time this kind of event fixates itself upon them." and the most important quote "And every day that he felt miserable it got to him, until one day he or they got up and said, "You know what?! If this is the way the world is, this is how I'll be too."" Don't you see what's happened? You didn't START out as the offender, the dealer of darkness, you started out the RECEIVER. Your logic is, "I will be this way because I'm looking out for #1, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE." At some point during life, someone or even a GROUP of someone's, this "Bush Administration", this "fellow man that hates you", only served to breed more of the same into you. Your view of the world darkened, and the world became a darker place. And you know what happened by your transformation? You know what you solved? You made it better for you, for #1. And you joined them. You didn't solve it, you didn't counteract the events that transpired by creating an equal and opposite reaction, you added to it. And what's going to happen next? The equivalent to the "Bush Administration", and the "Fellow man that hates", and now YOU, who have joined them, are going to corrupt the next group of people, and make their worldview darker. And you know what they'll say? "I'm going to look out for number one, because Therion and all the others didn't give a damn about me, and treated me like garbage." Summation of this reply -------------------------- I said it once before, and I'll say it again. Ill will breeds more ill will. I'm not going to say that acting cheery and helpful to your fellow man will cause them all to band together and give you a million dollars. But repeating the cycle only serves to help amplify the cycle. There is something here that helps to fight this cycle, however. What is it? "THIS is why morality is here."



Chaos	Sep 28 2008, 03:17 AM Post #5
Master of the Chaotic Method Posts: 240 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Apr 1, 2008 Steam ID Katanoki	While I must say that your points are somewhat subjective, and thus out of the realm of debate-usable fact (something I'll explain momentarily), I also must agree with some of them. As far as social action between human beings go, negativity does (and always will) breed more negativity. While I feel Therion has it right when he criticises unabashedly, and when he states that criticism is the method through which people grow, I must agree that negativity simply for the sake of negativity aides none of the parties involved and will only increase the amount of negativity encountered in the future. That being said, negativity is a subjective term, as is morality. Some parties may agree with your view of negativity, but, as Alfred stated in The Dark Knight, "Some men just want to watch the world burn." There are many conflicting worldviews out there. And we can never truly know, 100%, right or wrong. Not only that, but this is, from the atheistic "Fertilizer After Death" theory, a pointless existence. So what's the point, essentially? My own nihilistic opinion, I suppose.



Pentanine	Sep 28 2008, 08:09 PM Post #6
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Therion Sep 28 2008, 02:55 AM Morality doesn't serve to fight the cycle, though. If anything, it serves to perpetuate it. The current widely accepted view of morality is pretty simple. Murder is bad, so is theft, don't fuck animals/relatives/trees. But then there are also subliminal moralities that we gain through our parent's actions, the actions of our peers, and through the media. Is the answer to do away with parents, peers and media? Obviously not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only way prevent people from closing their minds to certain avenues of thought (which lead to the development of personal morality) is to do away with the defining of what is and is not moral. Basically, nothing is immoral if morality does not exist: Things are only wrong if you define them as such. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not to say that things aren't wrong if there is no wrong, but people are less inclined to do them if they aren't taboo. Why break rules? Well, there are only two real reasons for that: Necessity or Rebellion. Most of us have our own little rebellions, our own little methods for breaking the rules. In a lot of us, it becomes what defines us, or what motivates us. There is a boundary; I must break it. There is a restriction; I must do away with it. What happens when you take away boundaries, though? Ask Christiania, or Somalia. It's the Thelemic doctrine: Do as thou wilt, and that shall be the whole of the law. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The strong and the intelligent flourish, and the weak and the dull perish. Without the bigotries of 'cannot' to hold people back, people are free to live up to their full potential. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for being a victim/perpetuator of the cycle, so what? I don't feel like a victim, per say. I even stated that in my previous post: They don't hate me on purpose, they just don't know better. The only thing we can hope for is that the next generation knows how to weigh the checks and balances of consequence better, and that the generation following inherits a better tomorrow. It doesn't require morality, it doesn't require rainbows falling out of asses. It just needs solid reasoning and rationalization. Okay, so let's address this in portions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- """""Morality doesn't serve to fight the cycle, though. If anything, it serves to perpetuate it. The current widely accepted view of morality is pretty simple. Murder is bad, so is theft, don't fuck animals/relatives/trees. But then there are also subliminal moralities that we gain through our parent's actions, the actions of our peers, and through the media. Is the answer to do away with parents, peers and media? Obviously not.""""" The only thing I have a decisive disagreement with in this statement is the first sentence, which essentially just says "You are wrong." This will probably be passively debated by the conclusion I reach through my other words in this post, so I'll move on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- """""""""""The only way to prevent people from closing their minds to certain avenues of thought (which lead to the development of personal morality) is to do away with the defining of what is and is not moral. Basically, nothing is immoral if morality does not exist: Things are only wrong if you define them as such."""""""""" See, this I not only disagree with but will debate. This statement essentially says two things, "Nothing's bad until people commonly agree it is." and of course what you actually said, "The ONLY way to prevent people from closing their minds...." The second one in the list I won't even bother with simply because my issue is that it IS too close-minded, it's saying "This is the only way to stop this thing from happening and there's no other way." Since, according to Rosier, we're allowed to use some movie quotes, I'll grab a fun one "There are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns. Things we don't know we don't know." The idea is even if I can't necessarily think of another way, that doesn't mean there isn't one. And I'll leave it at that for now. The FIRST one, however, I will not. The issue I have with this is that there doesn't always have to be a common agreement among people to say something's bad. Nor is it all that right to say "It's up to each individual person to say what's right and wrong." The problem with this is that it essentially depends TOO much on "What goes around comes around.", which changes the entirety of the moral code over to "Only do unto others as what you would have done unto yourself." (I'm depending so much on these quotes, amirite?) But what's wrong with that statement? Seems pretty fair right? Through this logic you'd only do good things to everyone and everyone would do good things onto you, making a giant happiness orgy. The thing that's wrong is that everyone's view of right and wrong is too drastically different to depend on each individual to micromanage himself. With this rule in effect, every masochist would become a sadist and do unto others as he would do unto himself. And you would all have a lot of fun re-enacting the movie Hostel, because he would love this stuff to happen to him. Oh wait. (Pardon the point-making sarcasm) Maybe it's that the WHOLE point of a common moral code, in addition to trying to keep people in line, is to keep people generally comfortable among each other as well. In order to live in society with other people, you have to have something between you to keep you all from tearing each other apart with the physical realization of your ideals, something besides the law. But hey, maybe that only leads to "The strongest survive." right? Read on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- """""""""""The strong and the intelligent flourish, and the weak and the dull perish. Without the bigotries of 'cannot' to hold people back, people are free to live up to their full potential.""""""""""" Most people's "potential" as is, is not really held back by moral society. The only real drawback that comes immediately to mind is random people QQ'ing at scientists and holding them back from research like stem cells. But that doesn't really affect regular people. There are of course, scenarios where people's "Thoughts" as you seem to have stated a couple times before are repressed, such as on bulletin boards and censorship, but that is too much to get into in this argument, so I'm passing that by. What morality DOES do, however, is ALLOW more people to reach their potential. Sure, if we weeded out all people perfectly with hostility until the sharpest and smartest and strongest survived, the world might consist of nothing but higher quality humans. But any person of decent intelligence, or any gamer who's played a game with a character creator and stat generation, knows that there's more than one way to excel over other people. What if you're very booksmart, but you don't think so well on your feet? (High INT, low WIT) What if you're incredibly strong, but obviously lacking in other stats? Bully people around randomly and/or kill people? Maybe you expect everyone who's smart and witty to be able to talk their way out of every situation, or build a mech-suit to protect them because their higher INT stat allows them to learn how to? But naaahh... it's only the good combinations of all these stats that deserve to not be weeded out. Because it's (More sarcasm) not like anyone who's been bad at snappy on your feet comebacks and lacking in physical strength has ever designed anything incredibly brilliant in the course of humankind, right? To clarify everything in this one into a smaller bit. Survival of the Fittest works pretty well for improving "out in the wild" gene strength, but it's terrible for intellectual development. Furthermore, it kinda sucks to have to look over your shoulder all the time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- """"""""""Not to say that things aren't wrong if there is no wrong, but people are less inclined to do them if they aren't taboo. Why break rules? Well, there are only two real reasons for that: Necessity or Rebellion. Most of us have our own little rebellions, our own little methods for breaking the rules. In a lot of us, it becomes what defines us, or what motivates us. There is a boundary; I must break it. There is a restriction; I must do away with it. What happens when you take away boundaries, though? Ask Christiania, or Somalia. It's the Thelemic doctrine: Do as thou wilt, and that shall be the whole of the law.""""""""""""" No significant comments to make. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And as for the final section here.... """"""""""As for being a victim/perpetuator of the cycle, so what? I don't feel like a victim, per say. I even stated that in my previous post: They don't hate me on purpose, they just don't know better. The only thing we can hope for is that the next generation knows how to weigh the checks and balances of consequence better, and that the generation following inherits a better tomorrow. It doesn't require morality, it doesn't require rainbows falling out of asses. It just needs solid reasoning and rationalization.""""""""" You see, not everyone feels like a victim. "If the world is this way, I'll be this way too." isn't always screamed into a dark and stormy night with your house burning down to the ground. Sometimes it's shoved into your head as a child, and you just learn it that way. Sometimes crap goes down and you don't feel victimized or offended as much as "Ok, I didn't know it was like that. Guess I'll play that way too." And so it's just the way they grew up with it, or accepted it, or ran with it for whatever reason. Not everyone does it with intention, not everyone goes up to someone and says "I'M GOING TO RUIN THIS GUYS DAY!" Of course not. So like it's been stated, not all people do these world-darkening things with flat out intention. And it would probably be preferable to educate these people in better ways to act from then on out in order to eliminate such behavior for the better cause of everyone (Preferable, not necessary.) But just because it already happens without intention doesn't mean you should JOIN them WITH intention. All that serves to do is make the NEXT batch of unintentional ne'er-do-wells. And.... Umm..... "THIS is why Morality is here." Oh yeah! I forgot about Rosier's post as well.... umm..... I guess ill just respond to the last portion, since the rest of it is just general "I kinda agree and disagree with both of you." """"""""""""""""""""Some men just want to watch the world burn." There are many conflicting worldviews out there. And we can never truly know, 100%, right or wrong. Not only that, but this is, from the atheistic"""""""""""""""""""" As for men wanting to watch the world burn? We have this thing called "Prison", brand new invention, gets rid of those wascally wabbits. Don't even TRY to start a whole new shabang about how prison does or does not work in some way, entirely different discussion. As for never truly knowing 100% right or wrong? We talked about that already, what with people's differing moral codes and whatnot. I already said we're not really going to agree entirely on all of our stuff. For a more indepth discussion on what I mean, re-read my first post. And as for "What's the point?" Well... are you talking about life? Or about what's the point of morality? Because I have one recommendation for each. Recommendation for the point of Life? Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to define the meaning of life? Don't you dare respond to that. If EITHER of you even TRY to lay down a decisive meaning of life on this forum, I will ragequit in 1/4 of a second. WAY too huge for the scope of this discussion. Recommendation for the point of Morality? I recommend you re-read all of my posts in this thread in their entirety. And.... Umm...... "THIS is why Penis is here."



Chaos	Sep 29 2008, 05:24 PM Post #7
Master of the Chaotic Method Posts: 240 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Apr 1, 2008 Steam ID Katanoki	I'll take a different tack, I suppose. @ Pentanine: Why is it wrong to make the world burn?



Pentanine	Sep 29 2008, 09:29 PM Post #8
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Rosier Sep 29 2008, 05:24 PM I'll take a different tack, I suppose. @ Pentanine: Why is it wrong to make the world burn? Hmm... I don't know.... Let me check something real quick. Lights arm on fire Yeahh.... I don't think doing that to the whole world would be a good thing persay.... But since you obviously mean it in a non-literal sense, I'll address that. I'm assuming by "Making the world burn" that you're referring to either A) A fullscale global conflict or B) Totally anarchy Problems with A) 1) You get shot 2) You get shot 3) You get stabbed, THEN you get shot 4) Massive worldwide misery 5) Possibility for global NUCLEAR conflict and the end of humanity 6) You get shot.... with a nuke. 7) You get raped by a horny soldier who's been traveling with a platoon of men for 2 months. No, he's not handsome in any way. THEN you get shot. 8) Don't taze me bro! The problems with a global war are fairly obvious Problems with B) Ya know.... while it for some reason SOUNDS nice to get rid of any and all outside control of our society, I don't think it would be. You see during the course of this whole discussion of morality, I've consistently said TWO things keep the crazy guy in the back from stabbing you for fun. 1) Morality 2) The law REALLY Rosier? Do you REALLY want to remove both of those limiters? Not only will he not have a psychological reason not to stab you, but he won't even have an unstoppable authority afterwards to worry about hunting him down. He can just kill you and move along. "But oh! The people that know me will get him for me!" This or something like it is the usual response to how you'll remain safe somehow. The issue they don't see with this is that they don't have a nationally cooperative network of individuals to find him once he leaves town. He guts you, leaves town, and then what? Your friends are going to dedicate their lives to finding him SOMEWHERE in the world? Letting the world burn is dangerous stuff. You might get burned yourself. "VAGINA is why Penis is here." Edited by Pentanine, Sep 29 2008, 09:37 PM.



Chaos	Sep 29 2008, 10:02 PM Post #9
Master of the Chaotic Method Posts: 240 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Apr 1, 2008 Steam ID Katanoki	That's nice, but I DID mean literally. What's wrong with someone walking up and shooting a person? In logical terms.



Pentanine	Sep 29 2008, 10:08 PM Post #10
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Rosier Sep 29 2008, 10:02 PM That's nice, but I DID mean literally. What's wrong with someone walking up and shooting a person? In logical terms. Thou shalt not kill? Thou shalt do unto others as you would have done unto thyself? In human terms, how would YOU like to be shot in the face? I mean.... it's such an obvious question that I think I'm missing something hidden in it. You off people and it's just like "wtf?" You've destroyed years of information gathering, personality development, sentient insight and emotions all in the pull of a trigger.



Chaos	Sep 29 2008, 10:13 PM Post #11
Master of the Chaotic Method Posts: 240 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Apr 1, 2008 Steam ID Katanoki	But why is that destruction a bad thing? Sure, it's a loss, but what's so bad about losing things? Some could say that attachments are only burdensome, and ridding yourself of ties is a good thing. (C'mere, Therion, I have some birthday cake for you.)



Pentanine	Sep 29 2008, 10:25 PM Post #12
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Rosier Sep 29 2008, 10:13 PM But why is that destruction a bad thing? Sure, it's a loss, but what's so bad about losing things? Some could say that attachments are only burdensome, and ridding yourself of ties is a good thing. (C'mere, Therion, I have some birthday cake for you.) People generally don't like losing things, I guess? Everyone can say whatever they want, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Just because you "have" things in the world doesn't mean they become a burden upon you. They only do so if you allow them to. Most of the time, when something you own "burdens" you, it's because you choose to use time and/or effort to upkeep it in order to improve your quality of life somehow. "Darn, I've gotta work to keep these house payments up, because living in a house makes life a lot better." "Darn, I've gotta pay bills to do so-and-so, because so-and-so makes my life better for me." This is usually how attachments that become bothersome end up troubling peoples lives somehow. But nothing MAKES you keep these things, you can default on your house payments anytime you want to, and you can quit your job anytime you please. The law states you cannot be thrown in jail for debt-related reasons anymore, so go ahead and live out in the mountains if you don't care for worldly possessions, nothing makes you. The people who don't, probably happen to enjoy their stuff, in a non-burdening way. But that only answers your side comment as to why "Losing things" is bad. Why is destruction a bad thing? Specifically, destruction of life is considered bad, because, at the moment, things become lost that are irreplaceable. Sure, you can go out and have ANOTHER baby or something, but that will never be the same as the last person that was killed. You've removed so much from the world by killing him/her. You've also removed potential. You've..... done away with things we hold dear when you kill people. That is generally why killing is bad. (Also, what's this about birthday cake and WHY am I not getting any of it?) Edited by Pentanine, Sep 29 2008, 10:26 PM.



Chaos	Sep 29 2008, 10:37 PM Post #13
Master of the Chaotic Method Posts: 240 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Apr 1, 2008 Steam ID Katanoki	Quote: People generally don't like losing things, I guess? Maybe I want them to lose things. Maybe I want to lose things. Maybe I enjoy being hurt, or am punishing myself. Or perhaps I enjoy losing things. Maybe I enjoy killing. Maybe a million things that would make me like losing things. Quote: Everyone can say whatever they want, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Just because you "have" things in the world doesn't mean they become a burden upon you. They only do so if you allow them to. Anything can become a burden. "I hate this job, but the economy is dying and so is my daughter unless I make her payments." Besides, when did this become focused solely on the fact that someone's "losing" something? I was talking about shooting a guy. And maybe I want to lose said guy. Maybe I owe him money and don't want to pay. Maybe I just don't like the prick. Who knows? Moving on. Quote: ... Burden mumbo jumbo that I just dealt with... Specifically, destruction of life is considered bad, because, at the moment, things become lost that are irreplaceable. Sure, you can go out and have ANOTHER baby or something, but that will never be the same as the last person that was killed. You've removed so much from the world by killing him/her. You've also removed potential. Maybe I didn't like that potential, and that's why I killed them. Fuck their potential. Quote: You've..... done away with things we hold dear when you kill people. That is generally why killing is bad. I sure in hell didn't hold the dead fucker dear, or I wouldn't've shot him! Well, unless he was being bad. Quote: (Also, what's this about birthday cake and WHY am I not getting any of it?) Scissor Sisters - I Can't Decide It's not easy having yourself a good time Greasing up those bets and betters Watching out they don't four-letter If I can kiss you both at the same time Smells-like something I've forgotten Curled up died and now it's rotten I'm not a gangster tonight Don't want to be a bad guy I'm just a loner baby And now you're gotten in my way I can't decide Whether you should live or die Oh, you'll probably go to heaven Please don't hang your head and cry No wonder why My heart feels dead inside It's cold and hard and petrified Lock the doors and close the blinds We're going for a ride It's a bitch convincing people to like you If I stop now call me a quitter If lies were cats you'd be a litter Pleasing everyone isn't like you Dancing jigs until I'm crippled Slug ten drinks I won't get pickled I've got to hand it to you You've played by all the same rules It takes the truth to fool me And now you've made me angry I can't decide Whether you should live or die Oh, you'll probably go to heaven Please don't hang your head and cry No wonder why My heart feels dead inside It's cold and hard and petrified Lock the doors and close the blinds We're going for a ride Oh I could throw you in the lake Or feed you poisoned birthday cake I wont deny I'm gonna miss you when you're gone Oh I could bury you alive But you might crawl out with a knife And kill me when I'm sleeping That's why I can't decide Whether you should live or die Oh, you'll probably go to heaven Please don't hang your head and cry No wonder why My heart feels dead inside It's cold and hard and petrified Lock the doors and close the blinds We're going for a ride It's me and Therion's song. Which slightly worries me... Edited by Chaos, Sep 29 2008, 10:38 PM.



Pentanine	Sep 29 2008, 10:58 PM Post #14
One-Hit Wonder Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Sep 25, 2008	Rosier Sep 29 2008, 10:37 PM Quote: People generally don't like losing things, I guess? Maybe I want them to lose things. Maybe I want to lose things. Maybe I enjoy being hurt, or am punishing myself. Or perhaps I enjoy losing things. Maybe I enjoy killing. Maybe a million things that would make me like losing things. Quote: Everyone can say whatever they want, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Just because you "have" things in the world doesn't mean they become a burden upon you. They only do so if you allow them to. Anything can become a burden. "I hate this job, but the economy is dying and so is my daughter unless I make her payments." Besides, when did this become focused solely on the fact that someone's "losing" something? I was talking about shooting a guy. And maybe I want to lose said guy. Maybe I owe him money and don't want to pay. Maybe I just don't like the prick. Who knows? Moving on. Quote: ... Burden mumbo jumbo that I just dealt with... Specifically, destruction of life is considered bad, because, at the moment, things become lost that are irreplaceable. Sure, you can go out and have ANOTHER baby or something, but that will never be the same as the last person that was killed. You've removed so much from the world by killing him/her. You've also removed potential. Maybe I didn't like that potential, and that's why I killed them. Fuck their potential. Quote: You've..... done away with things we hold dear when you kill people. That is generally why killing is bad. I sure in hell didn't hold the dead fucker dear, or I wouldn't've shot him! Well, unless he was being bad. Quote: (Also, what's this about birthday cake and WHY am I not getting any of it?) Scissor Sisters - I Can't Decide It's not easy having yourself a good time Greasing up those bets and betters Watching out they don't four-letter If I can kiss you both at the same time Smells-like something I've forgotten Curled up died and now it's rotten I'm not a gangster tonight Don't want to be a bad guy I'm just a loner baby And now you're gotten in my way I can't decide Whether you should live or die Oh, you'll probably go to heaven Please don't hang your head and cry No wonder why My heart feels dead inside It's cold and hard and petrified Lock the doors and close the blinds We're going for a ride It's a bitch convincing people to like you If I stop now call me a quitter If lies were cats you'd be a litter Pleasing everyone isn't like you Dancing jigs until I'm crippled Slug ten drinks I won't get pickled I've got to hand it to you You've played by all the same rules It takes the truth to fool me And now you've made me angry I can't decide Whether you should live or die Oh, you'll probably go to heaven Please don't hang your head and cry No wonder why My heart feels dead inside It's cold and hard and petrified Lock the doors and close the blinds We're going for a ride Oh I could throw you in the lake Or feed you poisoned birthday cake I wont deny I'm gonna miss you when you're gone Oh I could bury you alive But you might crawl out with a knife And kill me when I'm sleeping That's why I can't decide Whether you should live or die Oh, you'll probably go to heaven Please don't hang your head and cry No wonder why My heart feels dead inside It's cold and hard and petrified Lock the doors and close the blinds We're going for a ride It's me and Therion's song. Which slightly worries me... Well everyone one of your responses seems to be based entirely on what YOU want or YOU like. If you wanted to know why killing is bad from a universal perspective, that's what I told you. If you wanted to know why killing is bad from YOUR perspective, why you should care personally when you kill someone you dislike? That's a different story. But first I'll address this little detail here.... Quote: Everyone can say whatever they want, it doesn't necessarily make it true. Just because you "have" things in the world doesn't mean they become a burden upon you. They only do so if you allow them to. """""""""Anything can become a burden. "I hate this job, but the economy is dying and so is my daughter unless I make her payments.""""""""""" You see, in this scenario, possessions are not a burden. Society is. Society has told you "I will not fix your daughter unless you give me something that's usable universally as a figure of value among our people, namely money." In this scenario, you could STILL abandon all worldly possessions and become a mountain hermit. Problem with that? There's nobody to fix her up up there. In this case, you'd have to consider your daughter a possession, and whether or not you would be ok with losing her in order to remove her as a burden. You ALWAYS have the choice to remove your items of burden and move to the mountains, you just have to have the balls to do it. """""""""""""""""Besides, when did this become focused solely on the fact that someone's "losing" something?"""""""""""""" Never mind that whole """"But that only answers your side comment as to why "Losing things" is bad."""""""" I said or anything. NOW! Onto that whole "I done killeded people cuz i liekz to" shtick. """"""""""""""Maybe I didn't like that potential, and that's why I killed them. Fuck their potential."""""""""""""""""""" And you're asking what again? Why it's not to kill people from that perspective? Well frankly, any moral or sympathetic reason I give you, you will probably just respond with "I don't give a shit.", essentially. And that's what a lot of the main reasons are. I suppose the reason why YOU should personally care is because what goes around, comes around, and you'll probably be shot in the face too, if not thrown in jail, assuming you don't devise some dastardly plot to get away with it somehow. """""""""""""""""""Maybe I want them to lose things. Maybe I want to lose things. Maybe I enjoy being hurt, or am punishing myself. Or perhaps I enjoy losing things. Maybe I enjoy killing. Maybe a million things that would make me like losing things."""""""""""""""""""""""" If you respond to what I said with "What if I don't care what happens to me? What if I want to be punished?" Well then let me be the first to say goodbye, because you won't last long after you pull off those stunts. If you don't care about anything, not even yourself, then there's pretty much nothing ANYBODY can say to tell you why you should care about killing anyone else. If you change your mind out of the blue and you say you DO care about yourself, however, then the obvious answer is that someones gonna f* up your sh. People like other people, and when things mess with other things people like, they do something about it, generally speaking. If, however, you say "What if I can kill someone and get away with it?" Well.... if you don't care about the rest of the world, the effects you had on it, the person you killed, or anything else but what happened to YOU directly, then supposedly nothing is wrong with it from your perspective. I could tell you things about why it's wrong, but you wouldn't care, because in this scenario you only care about the direct result of what happens to you. And if you killed someone, once, got away with it, and fled, chances are you'll never see the effects of it besides what you do to yourself. shrug



Windex	Mar 7 2009, 11:01 PM Post #15
Hans Mo Man! Posts: 10 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: Mar 6, 2009 XBL Gamertag Windexinator Steam ID Windexdjd	...Yep.



Devking	Mar 11 2009, 02:09 AM Post #16
{ F o r g o t t e n { N i g h t M a r e } Posts: 38 Group: Global Moderators Member #13 Joined: Oct 3, 2008 XBL Gamertag Devking	Alright, I know that I'm very late in entering this debacle, but I'd still like to get my opinions on here nonetheless. Hopefully I won't have to backtrack too much and find what's already been said. I need to start by saying that I'm not a Christian, nor anything like that, but I'm not an atheist either. I have my own personal beliefs (currently being written into a book named Duael) called Ultimatism, so please do not bother with the rebuttal that I'm using religion to back up any of my arguments. Please only speak of the ideas I've stated below, because I'm not going to use any pre-existing standards to back any of my opinions up. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, there is no need to follow any personal morality, if one does not feel inclined to do so. If they have it in their minds that there is no god nor further consequence of performing actions that would be deemed immoral by the general public, then they would not have the need for any code of conduct. No one really needs to follow anything, but the point of the problem is not with "needing to follow morals" but rather with "the incentive of following morals." As in, we can establish that if people do not have the incentive to hold back, then they obviously don't need to hold back. But what judges if people will hold back is if they have that incentive. Morality is wholly unnecessary, unless an individual has some incentive to follow morals. ----- Not having an incentive is fine, but we need to discuss why having an incentive to follow a moral is needed. That follows in a section below, but I'd like to address another aspect first. ----- We need to begin with the thought that the lack of morality came first, before the having of morality. In society today, people think that the having of morality is the basis of being human, but it simply isn't true. Sometime along the lines of history, someone had to think up of the idea to follow a code of conduct, and some reason why it needed to be followed. So the elimination of morals, along with the idea that morality is unnecessary is perfectly rational. Anything can be deemed unnecessary, yet we will act based on the idea that it would make life more enjoyable, both for ourselves and others. Whenever we make a decision, self-progress is always the first factor that is counted for. Whether it be the need to make money, or wanting to help others, self-progress means accomplishing goals that we actually want to do. With these two factors accounted for, we establish morals for the sake of making a point in life. Not adhering to a code of conduct simply would be a lifestyle choice, like whether someone wants to eat pizza or cake for dinner. It would not be a subject of concern, for morals are just accepted ideals, much like any other thing in life. What I'm trying to set up is the fact that ignoring morals is neither a "good" or "bad" thing just yet. People cannot argue that "having morals is good" because "being moral is the right decision" or "being moral is the more helpful decision." Choosing to accept morality or not is simply a decision, that isn't negative or positive either way. ----- So if it's not negative or positive, does that mean that we don't have incentives to follow morals, and thus, we don't need morality? No, morality has been so intertwined into the culture of existing with society that the removal of morals would cause a "negative" impact. You might argue that by my logic, it would be "negative" to remove public stoning from a society that has that culture. It is true. Was public stoning really the culture of that society? Did they start public stoning when their race first appeared? No. Morality was also not a part of our "culture" until much later on. It is not a need created by genetics, and it is wholly optional to follow. And now I've made morality sound like a bad thing. It is just a societal creation that we follow just to "follow along." On the other hand, things like eating are necessary, because no one established that we need to eat. We just do. My long, long tangent from the topic of morality isn't wasted, though. The point is that we do not follow morality because it is necessary, nor because it is "better." It is a guise created by some ancestor, and for all we care, an alternate universe could exist where morality was a bad thing to them because it was never established. ----- But that doesn't mean that I believe there's an alternative universe where that is true. I do not believe that morality is a bad thing. And I do not believe that there will ever be a society where public stoning is positive. Yes, I have just built up the argument in favor of how useless morality is, but now I'm willing to completely destroy it, just to show that morality is different, and would be beneficial. Is it necessary? No. Beneficial? Yes. Better? No. The act of having something that's better than something else is wholly subjective. We cannot take subjective matters into account, because everyone has their own idea on those. The having of morality may not be "better" as some see it, but it is beneficial. From an objective point of view, it helps someone, somewhere. Some societies will oppose morality because this helping of someone else is deemed "evil." We can all agree, though, that keeping a code of conduct will in effect benefit someone in the world, and removing morality will hold a negative impact on them. We MUST ignore the fact that some societies do not want people to benefit. As in, though having morality may be beneficial, which is a positive factor, having morality may also be deemed "better" or "worse" for society. So once again, people cannot simple argue that morality is "good because ___" or "bad because ___" because that is just their subjective opinion, based on what' happened in society. Instead, we must look at why morality is still kept--we must look at the objective benefit. [Right now, I am speaking of subjective objectivism. As in, we may all view something differently, but it is the same in it's root. For example, we could all be seeing different colors. Like, your purple could be my blue. There's no way to figure out if it's true or not. That's why we must ignore the subjective fact that we might be pointing at an object and seeing different colors. Instead, we must look at the objective fact, that we are pointing at an object and perceiving it to be a certain color. We might see something as "purple" or "blue" to ourselves, but what comes out is, "Oh, that object is purple." Because both of us are able to identify that it was purple, even if we see different colors, there is some objective background that WILL ALWAYS be agreed upon.] Morality is the same. Subjective objectivism shows that morality will always be beneficial, even if it isn't particularly better or worse than lacking morality. We need to observe this phenomena on a higher level, and not just based on "if it's good for me" or "if it's good for someone else." It will create benefit of some sort, even if we don't view it as benefit. Not all things can be viewed this way, though. Laws, for example, are wholly subjective. Not all laws are beneficial, and not all laws will be able to be "beneficial even if we don't view it as such." So next up, we need to go into why morals are able to be made the exception that they are beneficial, and thus, the crux of the reasoning behind keeping morals. { w i p } Yeah, I know this is long, but I still have more to go. I shouldn't have convinced you guys why morals are still kept, and why I think they should still be followed yet, though. All this is just the setup for the argument, and it definitely is needed in order to follow along. When I play for a debate, I play for win. Oh, and yes, I will continue this sometime later. Too late now. [SUMMARY FOR THUS FAR] Morals cannot be supported just because not following morals will provide consequences. Morals are unnecessary, but it doesn't mean that we should get rid of morals. The lack of a God or belief in the afterlife does not mean that morals can be ignored. We follow morals not because they are viewed to be "good" or "bad," but because they are beneficial. The idea of being beneficial can be either "good" or "bad," but it is always going to be a positive factor. Even if one does not believe in God or afterlife, they should still follow morals, for it affects others and themselves at some point. Mainly, I'm telling people who promote morals to back off, because they are ruining the argument for others. Why bring religion and the afterlife into the argument when it doesn't make a difference? That goes for those against morals, too! Yes, I am in support of keeping morals. Edited by Devking, Mar 11 2009, 02:17 AM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Political Debate · Next Topic »